Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them

kinophile

Members
  • Content count

    1,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

kinophile last won the day on August 4 2015

kinophile had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About kinophile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,403 profile views
  1. Area target question

    For me I inherently dislike area fire. I find it wasteful of my ammo. Sometimes/often I wish to light up a treeline & along a road; with area fire I can waste 30% of my outgoing on ground in front of and behind the offending ditch. Now, I know the dastardly russkies are hiding in that ditch, and any reasonably intelligent IFV commander (oxymoron? :P) would aim along the ditch in a line, not spray the ground in front, the tree tops, the fields beyond the road, etc. Targeted linear suppression, would be a decent description? Currently, having only truly are fire feels like a holdover from WW2 titles, and while AF definitely has its uses I feel a more accurate control is appropriate to a modern situation such as CMBS.
  2. Area target question

    Same here (Erwin) But it's something I've also wished for. Laying down suppressive fire in a line, along a street/tree line or hill top. I've lost IFVs doing the above hack method, as moving them at all invites way more attention, a bit frustrating seeing as in reality it's just traversing the turret. Plus moving affects t's RUS/UKR accuracy more, Plus you lose valuable seconds at each pause. But it's currently the only way. It can be done safely, and there is something to be said for shoot & scoot (or is it suppress & egress?).
  3. BMP-3 on the firing range

    Two fat little ducks just waiting for a 82mm friend from the sky.
  4. Stryker vs Bradley

    Max fiyapowa is not the objective - a tailored, appropriate W'S is,, and exists. And the USMil is already going ahead and integrating it as we dibble dabble here.
  5. Stryker vs Bradley

    Bradley's go with M1s, which are not amphibious. In the above study, it's noted just how difficult/awkward/non linear it was to integrate Strykers and Abrams together. It's a pity they weretraining in the ME terrain of the NYC, I'd be interested to see what it's like to put them together in the more riverine east coast. Yes, logistics. The issues discussed are directly battlefield related - maneuverability and tactical fire support. Every weapons system has a tail, and no military wants to freely add one more load point into a finely tuned system. But they will, if they feel the need. The MRAP is insanely awkward to move, yet the US made its logistics work. So if there is a need,, it can happen, and will. Adding a 30mm RWS to 1 out of however many Strykers doesn't break the formation, mission, logistics or maneuverability of a Stryker unit. Tbh, I'd have thought the 105 MGS was way out of scale (logistically) for a Stryker unit. Doesn't it feel like such a huge gap between 50 cals/GLs and aaalllllllll the way to a light tank main gun? Amphibious capability is gone anyway,, it's moot - it would require such a fundamental redesign that its simply not gonna happen. There's always this, of course. A top mounted RWS on the other hand.... I'd be interested in anyone's playing a custom battle/scenario version of that UKR v RUSSIAN map, what is it - Futile? Relentless? Hell? I forget, but it's UKR btr mech inf defending a riverine town v RUS Armor-Mech assault. I also forget if Dragoons are modeled in CMBS? Ether way, map in Two flavours: 1. US Stryker, as is, no 30mm Dragons, , assaulting same town, defended by RUS BTR 82As. 2. US Strykers with integrated Dragoons OR 1 UKR BTR 4 (a very poor substitute,) per RP. See how both fare (BTR 4Es,are not allowed fording, if Capable). Not ore judging, but curious.
  6. Stryker vs Bradley

    Not quite what we're saying, and you're racing to an extreme fringe in an attempt belittle a pretty reasonable desire - better, tactically appropriate organic fire support and amphibious capability. Reductio ad absurdum is entertaining, but only ever proves its inherent point, that there is no real alternative or discussion point being presented other than to suggest that anything but your position is automatically ridiculous. Which is plainly argumentative mockery, especially as 30mm APCs do exist and yet somehow are not VTOL, orbit capable and can carry a platoon, their equipment, some chickens and the CO's mistress. The point stands, and is backed up by the raw reality of other nation's militaries designing, building, ordering and using APCs that are amphibious, all over the world. Feature creep is a real danger, but so is being stopped by a river and also not having rapid fire 30mm when RUS or equivalent BTRs/APCs/IFVs show up. From what's said above, the addition of a 30mm would not break the primary mission of troops transport.
  7. Stryker vs Bradley

    The fundamental requirement doesn't change, regardless of era. There will always be bodies of water to get across.
  8. Stryker vs Bradley

    BY all that's holy, THIS. The Russians can make their tinker-toy BTRs amphib, but the all encompassing US military can't do so for the Stryker,, a vehicle whose fundamental purpose is infantry mobility? Seriously? There will always be a bridge? Even in CM, if an oppo mines a bridge over anything larger than, oh a trickle of piss and properly covers it then Strykers are screwed. Pretty ridiculous, IMHO.
  9. Stryker vs Bradley

    Very interesting. Also, they literally quote Stryker Lt.Gen Lanza: "There’s a lot of things that had to change in terms of our approach to Stryker training at home station, because we were focused on COIN … and we had a big discussion about the platform itself, because we did not want to employ it as a Bradley.” And: "The focal point was always delivering infantry into the fight ". No surprises there, right? All that said, a 30mm would not screw the med unit role - I've lost count if the times I've lost vehicles Nd squads because that 50 cal and GL just can't suppress as well as a 30 mm. I love UKR/RUS BTRs for exactly that reason. Just wish they had better optics. God how I wish that. Having a 30mm won't make me put them near tanks, I'm not an idiot. And I'm not even ex-Mil.
  10. Russian army under equipped?

    That's a little odd to say. Cato was advocating the utter annihilation of a city state, and got it - women, children and all.
  11. It almost sounds like there's a mission here for an tactical, platoon level, anti-ATGM, force protection vehicle. An MBT still with a main gun but with Extra APS ammo/systems/sensors to group protect its immediate neighbours. It could be 1 per platoon. Retaining the main gun & say 50% ammo would be a fundamental priority. Or use a specialist AFV but as I understand it, tankers don't like having less protected vehicles integrated into their immediate platoons, for very sound tactical reasons. Oh daydreaming, it's always fun.
  12. Not sure it's so exciting. It's just a prototype. A decent one for sales purposes. So the UKR can build a vehicle that's similar in capability and design to a Russian one - not that great a surprise, considering almost all mechanized/tracked UKR vehicles are originally Russian desugn & build. I haven't heard that it's getting officially adopted by the UKR armed forces. Or even a proper test batch. Or even any sales to anyone. Until then it's essentially a sales pitch. Looks nice, certainly. Effective, probably. But still just a demo model. Do you have specs, details, user experience accounts?
  13. Putin's War Against Ukraine. Book

    Copy that.
  14. Putin's War Against Ukraine. Book

    It's working for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Hungary etc etc. All those countries are peaceful, prosperous and their younger generation has huge opportunities in comparison to say, Russia/Belarus/Ukraine. Andy critically, they all want to to stay in the EU. It's not even an issue. The benefits (money, opportunities, improved services/infrastructure, rule of law) are massive compared to what they can provide by themselves. Ireland has proper motorways finally that are 60%+ funded by the EU. Same with Poland. We have a standard of living equal to the UK because of the EU. We have access to products, services and jobs across the EU because of the EU. I have a close relative in construction who is up for a top post leading the design and construction of airports in Denmark. His interviews are conducted in English and he is in return expected to learn Danish. That's the real EU - open, free opportunity for everyone. If your contention is that the EU isn't beneficial then you're simply ignoring plain as day facts. No bias needed, just basic observation, simple weighing up of of the benefits. The Ukrainians are fighting a war to literally gain those benefits. But I smell a knee-jerk brexit rant, so what's the point?
  15. Th future of armour

    The fuel consumption for the helicopters would be ridiculous. How do you propose refueling the 400+ we'd need? That kind of aerial tanker demand would shut down every US air campaign, everywhere; and as a publicly funded make-work program for hyper-educated electrical engineers with a fatal desire to fall from a great height,, we all know that will never happen. Far more sensible to use a wide scale micro solution - float about, oh, ten million aluminum-clad styrofoam panels into the storms path. They will bounce light and heat Back and the hurricane, profundly fuddling (technical term, but bear with me) the weather system's internal air currents. With the right conditions we might even reverse the hurricanes revolutions, literally sending back where it came from - Venezuela! Take that, communists!
×